Chevaline: "followed by a parallel route"

The Place du Martinet

Saad al Hilli, his wife Iqbal, mother-in-law Suhaila and French cyclist Sylvain Mollier were shot to death at the Place du Martinet, close to the village of Chevaline (Haute-Savoie) at approximately 3.35pm local time on the afternoon of Wednesday 5th September 2012. Additionally, Saad and Iqbal's eldest daughter Zainab sustained a bullet wound to the shoulder and was bludgeoned with a Luger pistol, leaving her unconscious and with serious injuries. Their younger daughter Zeena was found by police several hours later, hiding on the floor of the car in which her parents died.

These are the most basic facts of the horror that unfolded in a matter of minutes on a quiet mountain road in the sunshine of a late summer afternoon. And for a long time, that's all that was known about the events of that day. What little official information was available came via Eric Maillaud, the then Procureur (Chief Prosecutor) of the Annecy area of Haute-Savoie. One of the first questions he was asked by journalists was “were the victims followed?” His reply, that there was no evidence of the Al Hilli family being followed from England or from the campsite where there were staying on the day of the murders, but that “they may have been followed by a parallel route” caused confusion at the time and for a long while afterwards.

Eric Maillaud, Annecy Procureur in 2012

The confusion was further heightened when it was later suggested that the killer arrived at the scene before the victims, appearing previously unseen from above the car park at the Place du Martinet shortly after they arrived from the village below. How could this be? A clandestine meeting? A pre-planned ambush targeting the Al Hilli family or Sylvain Mollier, the French cyclist also killed in the attack? It was only in 2015, when press and public interest in the case was beginning to wane that new information revealed an important clue to what is perhaps the simplest theory which explains what led to the death of four people that day and one that French police have most likely been pursuing since the investigation began.

The Al Hilli family had intended to go to a theme park that day, but time drifted by and the plan was abandoned. Given instead the choice of shopping in Annecy or taking a walk in the countryside, the two girls opted for the latter. And so the family left the Camping le Solitaire du Lac at around 1pm and drove towards Chevaline, a small village to the south east on the edge of the Bauges National Park. At approximately 2.40pm their maroon BMW estate car was seen in the village of Chevaline heading south on the Chemin Rural dit la Grande Combe by local builders doing restoration work on a holiday home. At 3.17pm Suhaila took a photo of Saad, Iqbal, Zainab and Zeena, apparently smiling and relaxed in front of a farm building on the Route du Moulin, just south of Arnand, with a view of the mountains behind.

Al Hilli family photo on the Route du Moulin

What happened in between these two events is not known in detail - most likely Saad drove south through Chevaline, then turned left to come back north on the Route du Moulin towards Arnand, before parking up to explore on foot. It is known that there are several photographs of the family around the area of Arnand taken in the half hour before the 3.17pm photo, which is believed to be the last image of the family together. Of those photos, it has been known since early in the investigation that one of them was taken in front of a house or wall decorated with flowers (variously referred to in the French media as a "maison fleurie" or "mur fleuri"). But not until 2015 was it revealed that, unlike the other photos, all five members of the Al Hilli family group appeared in this image.

Was the mobile phone used to take this picture carefully placed and the photo taken using a self-timer? Or did the family encounter someone in Arnand who offered to take their photo in front of the house? Did a conversation ensue between the Al Hillis and this person? And, in the course of that conversation, did this person either direct the Al Hillis towards the Place du Martinet or become aware of their intention to go there? With the decision to go Chevaline that day apparently spontaneous and to a large degree random and available CCTV showing no evidence of them being followed from the campsite to Arnand, it was perhaps here that what Eric Maillaud referred to as the pursuit of the family “by a parallel route” began.

A "maison fleurie" in Arnand

There are two routes from Arnand to the Place du Martinet. The first, south on the Route du Moulin and then onto the Combe d’Ire (Route Forestière Domaniale de la Combe d’Ire) is accessible by car; this was the route taken by the Al Hilli family. The second, via the Chemin de la Combette begins as a gravel track accessible by car as it leaves Arnand, but narrows further south before eventually emerging at a bend in the road above the Place du Martinet as little more than a forest trail. To complete the climb from Arnand to the Place du Martinet via this route in the time available between the photo and the shootings would require a trail motorcycle or similar – possibly the kind of bike seen moving slowly down the Combe d’Ire by British cyclist William Brett Martin just before he arrived at the scene minutes after the shooting and described by Eric Maillaud in 2014 as a “high-powered scooter”.

And so we come to the central question: while the Al Hillis returned to their car and began the drive up to the Place du Martinet, was the mystery photographer, for whatever reason, going to his home, picking up a handgun and three fully loaded magazines before climbing onto a motorbike and riding via the back roads to intercept and kill them? In short, rather than a complex web of intrigue, clandestine meetings or family feuds, were the Chevaline murders simply the result of a local killer acting on impulse? The photo, the description of the motorbike, the local knowledge required to get to the Place du Martinet unseen and the use of an historic weapon strongly associated with the area (a Swiss army issue Luger P06) all suggest that this must remain a strong possibility.

From L'Essor Savoyard: 22nd October 2015

In terms of theories surrounding the Chevaline killings, this is as simple as it gets. But even the simplest theory is not evidence.  In October 2015 an anonymous Chevaline resident told a reporter from the local newspaper L'Essor Savoyard that "people saw things on the day of the murders, but haven't spoken to the police for fear of reprisals." In the Gregory Villemin case (the 1984 murder of a young boy in a similar rural community) witnesses are only now coming forward to speak for the first time in 33 years. Until those who claim that they "saw things" that day in Chevaline and Arnand do the same, theories may be all we have.

Grégory Villemin: a last roll of the dice?

Church of Saint Libaire, Lépanges-Sur-Vologne

May 2017: In the village church of Lépanges-Sur-Vologne, where Grégory Villemin lived his short life, a Sunday school teacher passes the time while waiting for children to arrive for a confirmation class by flicking through the visitors' book on a table by the main door. Among the prayers and compliments on the floral displays she sees an entry which pulls her up short:

It really was Bernard L. who killed Grégory. I was with him.

Murielle Bolle - 13th May 2008

The teacher immediately recognises the names on the page; Bernard Laroche: the cousin of Grégory's parents who was initially suspected or the kidnap and murder, before being released and shot dead by Grégory's father, Jean-Marie Villemin in 1985. Murielle Bolle: Laroche's sister-in-law who was the primary witness against him before dramatically retracting her statement in the wake of what has been suggested were violent threats from family members.

After the initial shock of recognition, the teacher calms herself, assuming that it is probably just a bad joke made by a local youth or any one of the numerous "fait diversiers" (true crime afficionados) who still frequent the area to this day. Nonetheless, the next day she shows it to a former mayor of the commune who, 'just in case', passes it on to the Gendarmerie. They decide to take it more seriously.

Unknown to the ex-mayor, a new review of the case has been underway in secret for several months in Dijon, so when the visitors' book is received, it is added to the case files and a DNA analysis commissioned. Six unique DNA traces are identified on the page where the message was written, of which one corresponds to... Murielle Bolle. Almost unbelievably, after 33 years, it appears she has decided to end her silence.

Monique Villemin

At the beginning of June 2017, a new series of police interviews is scheduled. First to be called in is Grégory's grandmother, Monique Villemin. Prior to the discovery of the visitors' book, DNA testing has revealed that she is the author of a threatening letter to the Dijon judge whose investigation cleared Christine Villemin of all charges relating to Grégory's death. At the time Monique wanted the inquiry to continue to focus on her daughter-in-law Christine, perhaps with the aim of protecting her son Michel, a friend of Bernard Laroche, who had previously been accused of colluding with him. She is released without charge.

Next to be interviewed are Marcel and Jacqueline Jacob. Marcel is the brother of Monique, but considered to be part of a 'clan' within the family which included Bernard Laroche and Michel Villemin. When suspicion first fell on Laroche, it also spread to the others in the group as possible co-conspirators. Following interview, the couple are charged with the "kidnap resulting in death" of Grégory, but released on bail with the conditions that they have no contact with each other and live separately, away from their home in Aumontzey.

Jacqueline and Marcel Jacob

Murielle Bolle is scheduled for interview after the Jacobs' release. But before confronting her with the new evidence of the visitors' book, further verification is sought. On the day the Jacobs are brought in for questioning, a new DNA sample is taken from Murielle. To the horror of investigators, it does not match the DNA profile from the book. Were samples mixed up in the laboratory? Did Murielle Bolle somehow manage to provide a false sample? Either way, police face the possibility that they have been working with an incorrect DNA profile for Murielle Bolle since samples were taken in 2009.

What course the investigation has followed since the second sample was taken on June 14th 2017, I cannot say. Other items of evidence have previously been subjected to DNA analysis which proved inconclusive - no doubt investigators will have looked again at some of these in the light of the newly-discovered error. Or did the discovery of a mix-up of samples in the lab point instead to a relative of Murielle in whom she had confided as the author of the book entry? Whatever the case, Murielle Bolle was brought in for interview on Wednesday 28th June; police deciding to use the remaining 25 hours of the 48 originally available to them when she was first questioned in 1984.

After suggestions from her lawyer that she was now under investigation for failure to report a crime and conspiracy to murder and an interruption of several hours when Murielle was taken to hospital following a fainting fit, she was transferred to Dijon on Friday to appear before an investigating magistrate. As a result, as I write this she remains in custody in Dijon pending a remand hearing on Tuesday 4th July; once again charged with the kidnap of Grégory Villemin in 1984.

UPDATE 11/7/17: Murielle Bolle's detention was extended at the July 4th hearing. She remains in prison pending a confrontation with a new witness; a cousin who claims that she was subjected to violence by family members on the evening of 5th November 1984, following her statement which implicated Bernard Laroche in the kidnap of Grégory Villemin. The confrontation is currently scheduled for 28th July 2017.

UPDATE 12/7/17: Jean-Michel Lambert, the first investigating magistrate in the case, found dead at his home in Le Mans on the evening of 11/7/17. Initial investigation suggests suicide.

Grégory Villemin: this time, the truth?

Grégory Villemin

Shortly after 5pm on the evening of Tuesday October 16th 1984, four year old Grégory Villemin was taken from outside his house in the village of Lépanges-Sur-Vologne in the Vosges region of France. At 9.15pm that day his body, bound at the wrists and ankles, was recovered from the River Vologne in the nearby village of Docelles. The official cause of death was drowning, but the small amount of water in his lungs and the later discovery of a syringe and an ampule of Insulin suggested that he was also drugged before entering the water.

Initial suspicion focused on Bernard Laroche, a cousin of Grégory's father Jean-Marie. Handwriting experts called in by the police identified him as a potential author of numerous threatening letters to Grégory's parents, a theory supported by claims of rival 'clans' within the extended family. He was interviewed and provided an alibi for the time of the kidnap and murder, but police found it unconvincing.

Bernard Laroche; Murielle Bolle

Laroche's alibi relied heavily on corroboration by his 15 year old sister-in-law, with whom he and his wife shared their home. But when interviewed, after initially supporting his version of events she changed her account when challenged, stating instead that he had picked her up from school that day before driving to a nearby village where he had collected a young boy. They then drove to another village, where Laroche took the boy from the car, disappearing from sight briefly before returning alone. Murielle stated that at the time of the events she recognised neither the boy nor the villages, but later realised from press articles that it was Grégory Villemin and that the villages were Lépanges-Sur-Vologne and Docelles, respectively.

After repeating this version of events to the instructing magistrate Jean-Michel Lambert, Bernard Laroche was arrested and Murielle sent home. But then Lambert made a mistake which was to blight the case from that day to this. Asked by waiting press what had led to the arrest of Laroche, Lambert stated that it was the result of a “temoignage capitale” – a statement from a key witness. Was it Murielle Bolle? Yes. Was she in the car with him? Er… yes. In a matter of a few seconds he publicly identified the primary witness against Bernard Laroche - a witness he had just sent back to Laroche's family with no protection.

Jean-Michel Lambert: 'Le Juge Lambert'

What happened in the Laroche house after Murielle returned there on the evening of Monday 5th November 1984 is a matter of debate to this day, but the next day she retracted her statement in its entirety, claiming later that she had been threatened by police and telling TV reporters and press “Bernard is innocent; my brother-in-law is innocent”. Lambert tried to maintain the case against Laroche, but procedural errors meant that the earlier handwriting analysis could not be used in evidence. As a result the case faltered and, after three months on remand, Bernard Laroche was released in the February of 1985.

Following his release, the case was taken out of the hands of the Gendarmerie and passed to the civilian police, who began a new inquiry. New handwriting experts were commissioned and suspicion moved from Laroche towards Christine Villemin, Grégory's mother; a fact that she and her husband first learned via an RTL radio broadcast in March 1985. Stunned by the news, the newly pregnant Christine suffered a haemorrhage and was rushed to hospital. Leaving his wife in the hands of medical staff, Jean-Marie returned home, picked up a shotgun, drove to the home of Bernard Laroche and shot him dead, as he had previously threatened to do in front of journalists on the day of Laroche's release in February. He then returned to the hospital and asked nurses to call the police.

Jean-Marie and Christine Villemin

Christine Villemin was charged with the murder of Grégory in July 1985, but again the case faltered: handwriting analysis proved inconclusive; witness statements unreliable and doubts were raised over the way physical evidence was collected. Christine was bailed in 1985, but it was not until 1993 that she was formally cleared of all charges following a new inquiry by the Court of Appeal in Dijon. 

1993 also saw the trial of Jean-Marie Villemin for the killing of Bernard Laroche. His lawyers sought to make the event a posthumous trial of Laroche, presenting his death as a justifiable homicide. Murielle Bolle maintained her retraction, however and Jean-Marie was convicted. Sentenced to 5 years, he was released ten days later on the basis of time served while on remand between 1985 and 1987.

And from there the case began to go cold. Attempts at DNA analysis in 2000 proved inconclusive. A new attempt in 2009 led to the inquiry being briefly re-opened in 2011, to little avail. It was not until May 2017 that a series of bizarre twists led to this apparently coldest of cases suddenly coming back to the boil...

France’s oldest cold case: the disappearance of Yves Bert.

Yves Bert

What happened to Yves on February 3rd 1977, at the door of the Mazenod School in the 3rd Arrondissement of Lyon, France? Forty years later, the mystery remains complete. The six-year-old boy with blond curls, in his first year of primary school, disappeared with no witnesses.

That day the bell rang "as it did every evening at 5pm. The teacher took her pupils to the exit and they joined hands to go out two by two" the head of the primary school told the French newspaper France-Soir that year. Yves’s older brother Yannick, who was eight at the time, waited for him at the corner of the street. Eventually he was joined by his parents, who were worried by the absence of their children; the journey to the family home in the Rue Paul-Bert took only a few minutes. "I immediately thought it was serious. We visited the classrooms, but there was no one. The head gave us parents' addresses, thinking that Yves had perhaps gone home with one of the other children. At 6pm, we finally called the police," Thérèse Deleuze, the little boy's mother told the paper. According to the caretaker of the school, there was no doubt about it: the boy definitely left the building. He was holding the hand of a little girl, who let go of him once they were outside to join her mother.

An anonymous letter

That same evening, the police started their search for the missing child. The cellars of the district were turned over, but in vain. Yves’s parents, helped by a group of friends, criss-crossed the area putting up posters. Calls to potential witnesses were made across France. Yves's parents were to receive many letters, of which one in particular stood out. "I am writing to you to let you know that I have very good news about your son... Since we cannot have a child, we felt that we had to resort to kidnapping. But now we are tortured by remorse and have decided to return your child to you" wrote an anonymous correspondent on July 24th 1978.

The letter was posted in Privas, in the Ardèche and told Yves’s parents to expect a call to a phone box at the Perrache station in Lyon for further information. On the evening when the call was due they waited as instructed, but it never came. In the following months, four more messages followed. Each one came to nothing.

The case relaunched

On 12 June 1979 the body of a child found in the Rhone was presented to Yves's parents for identification. DNA identification did not yet exist at the time, but the police nevertheless excluded the possibility that it was Yves. Thirty-two years later, in 2009, with the advance of forensic science, the case was relaunched. But whether the body in the river was ever positively identified (and how it came to be there) is not clear– certainly it appears that it was not Yves Bert, as the investigation remains open to this day and is now noted as France’s oldest “cold case”.

Every year, on the anniversary of Yves’s disappearance Thérèse Deleuze contacts the press in the hope that a fresh appeal will bring some new information which might lead to discovering the truth about her son’s disappearance. But so far, only silence. And at the age of seventy, with forty years now passed since the event, she increasingly feels that there is little hope left of ever knowing what happened that day in the short distance between the door of the school and the street corner. She had intended not to approach the press as usual this year, but finally felt she had to, as she “owes it to little Yves”.

If you have any information which might help to resolve this case, please contact APEV:

Aide aux Parents d’Enfants Victimes

3, Rue Edouard Branly

92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux

Tel/Fax: 01 46 48 35 94

Email: contact@apev.org